Talk:USS Voyager/archive

2378?

As I have commented elsewhere, I have noticed that is is accepted that Voyager returned home in 2377. Where is this mentioned - as in Homestead, Neelix commented that they were celibrating the 315th anniversary of First Contact - wouldn't that place the year as 2378?

This seems consistant with the Star Trek website. They seem to imply that Endgame crosed into 2378.

Voyager's Season 1 was in [[2371]. Add seven years to that (seven seasons), and you get 2378 indeed. You reference to the 315th birthday of First Contact is good evidence. Ottens 12:59, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Surely it goes like this (remembering that four season two episodes were produced for season one and have season one Stardates, they aired correctly in the UK) - Season 1 - mid-2371, Season 2 - 2372, Season 3 - 2373, Season 4 - 2374, Season 5 - 2375, Season 6 - 2376, Season 7 - 2377. Voyager still follows the TNG/DS9 convention of having the second digit in the stardate increase by 1 every year, and the stardate for Endgame was 54973.4, which is a 2374 Stardate. Alex Peckover 13:07, Jul 6, 2004 (CEST)

2377 stardate actually but I see what you mean. Of course it's possible that the events of Endgame cross over into the 55000 stardates, thereby starting another year. The fact that the anniversary is mentioned in Homestead is difficult but perhaps not impossible to rectify.

Or that Series 1 was 2371-2372, S2 was 2372-2373...S7 would be 2377-2378. And the idea that the digits changed every season doesn't necessarily mean the year changes every year at that point, we should all know that stardates aren't consistant! MiChaos 22:26, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST)

I always got the impression that Endgame was several months after Renaissance Man. It would be possible then, that the episode was in 2078.

Now that seems somewhat unlikely. :P Ottens 20:13, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

novelization information

Separate question: The novelisation and script of Caretaker refer to the deceased doctor as Fitzgerald. Should this be taken as canon and referenced in the crew roster?

Please state your name for the reccord. ;) No, I don't think that's really canon. Even the novelization of The Motion Picture (written by Roddenberry himself, how more canon do you want it?) isn't regarded as "canon". Ottens 17:25, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST)

I'd be inclined to recognize a source by Roddenberry, however. But the Caretaker novelization was done early in the series, by a writer not associated with Paramount, working for a licensed source (Pocket Books)). This means that it is not acceptable canon (expecially since there is evidence in the "Imperfection" casualty list that the doctor and engineer might have different names. However, information like that can still be collected, and referenced in a clearly marked "Background" section. It is presented in this way as necessitated by the site canon policy -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 06:06, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST)

(If you put four tildes (~~~~) after your message, it will leave your username or address, so that we can properly respond to you)

Voyager's route home?

This article might be a good home for a geographical survey of the Delta Quadrant and Voyager's route through it, as discussed here. It wouldn't need every planet visited, but a list of the major areas might be useful. -- Josiah Rowe 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I think Regions visited by Voyager might be a decent idea for an article. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 11:49, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Background Information

Shouldn't the information from USS Voyager prototype be moved here and the page deleted? It's all background info and doesn't exist in canon Trek! --Defiant | Talk 12:00, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I think it falls under background information -- if we are creting pages for other facets of the craft (directors, performers, composers -- then we should start with some info on costumes, sets, props and models -- the prototype page is waiting some more sibling articles about the other models built for the series, and a top level page to list all of the above. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 15:04, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the creation of these "prototype" articles. I think there's a big difference between people that have lives outside of Trek and models that were built specifically for Trek. For instance, the Voyager prototype is much more related to Voyager, it was built purposefully for that reason and no other, than Jeffrey Combs is related to Shran, he only played the Andorian and has other functions, both in Trek and outside. Prototype information can easily be displayed on starship articles, but where does information about a director, actor or composer go if they have appeared several times in Trek?

Obviously, the option that will give most space is if we create behind-the-scenes personnel pages and use the relevant starship pages for "prototype" info.

Also, is there a third option? Is it possible that we could do both - create new pages for prototypes but also display the information on the relevant starship pages.

I realize my response may be seen as a "personal attack" (just about anything can be seen as that, these days!) but I'm only trying to help find the best solution for MA. I hope other Archivists realise this. --Defiant | Talk 14:36, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Crew Complement

Ah, the red shirts just keep appearing. While it gives the exact numbers given on two separate dates, In my opinion I think it should say "~150" or approximately 150 some how. Cause the idea of Voyagers crew was always 150, they always mentioned it. But when ever they needed an exact number, it'd vary (147, 141, 153) And they were always different, rarely actually accounting for red shirt deaths. Well, I suggest 150. Any disagreements? - AJHalliwell 11:12, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)